An enquiry into the sources of morals

Monday, October 11, 2021

Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Seneca is an old philosopher
David Hume in 1751
The ancient philosophers understand human actions in term of ??
All human actions aim at a good, and the good is the end of the human actions. The moral theory are ??
In modernity, philosophers are not considered anymore with the causes of our actions; modern science
is the search for causes of natural phenomena and causes that can be traced to general laws under
which all phenomena falls.
Causes also for human actions.
Hume try to explain human actions by tracing back the causes by ???
• Ancient philosophers understand the goods as the end achievable; Reason help in order to guide
the moral agent to achieve the end (Aristotle) and provide criteria to determine the mean
• Modern philosophers > causes (and not reasons) explain; in forest, I fear and run away. What
cause the action is the fear (feeling) and not moral reason.
Hume say we do not do any kind of reason in such situations (no time for reasoning); what leads me is
fear (when I see dogs); feeling of fear without thinking. Reasoning do not lead me to act, it is feelings.
Ancient philosopher mean that our actions are conclusion of practical syllogism (kind of reason)

Syllogism 2 kinds: either speculative or practical.

Speculative: The conclusion I believe result from certain conclusion (I am in street and see it is wet and I
know every time the street is wet, it means it rained). The circumstances now today, therefore I
conclude it rained
>> Conclusions result from reasoning constituting in measure claiming containing universal quantifier
(every time wet > rained)
Types of reasoning in which the conclusion is drown from a moral reasoning constituting in measure ???
We have practical syllogism: focus of study of moral philosophy
Moral philosophy (ancient) understand human actions as conclusions
Major and minor premise (faradia)
(it is good to add calcium to our diet > general claim about what is good (major premise); minor premise
> this milk contain calcium >> for both we draw a conclusion > I drink milk (action result from a major
and minor premise)
Ancient philosophers believe that human actions are conclusion of practical syllogism (what guides
human actions is reason, in this text it deny this)
If I drink milk, I don't do it bcz of moral reason (it is good in my diet and high calcium so I drink), Hume
say it result from fear (I drink bcz I fear from dying from osteoporosis)

Text: The general sources of morals

page 2:

What is the ultimate basis upon which morality is grounded? Some believe from reasons (practical
syllogism). Others believe that human actions result from feeling
Are our actions result from practical syllogisms (drink milk example > chain of argument) or feelings (of
pleasure, attraction or repulsion)
It is a controversy
If we believe that human actions are inferences of practical syllogisms > human actions are valid
universally. Whereas if we believe what causes human actions are feelings > feelings change, relative to
human beings; feelings are not universal, therefore moral judgments in this case are not universally valid

Ancient philosopher believe that human actions are virtuous actions aim at happiness (performed well
through reason that guides us to choose the mean). We, moral philosophers, however believe that the
basis of human actions is not moral reasoning but are sentiment or feelings
(controversy btw ancient and modern)

There are 2 arguments in favor of claim that actions are product of moral reasoning

Argument in favor of moral reasoning: in all actions we have to explain them (justify our actions) in
front of others; we provide reasons to our actions; when we do this, we make a kind of practical
syllogisms (explain our acts as conclusion); example: arguing with my GF, I yell and then I apologize then
I explain myself and then she also defend herself and explain; every time we have to explain our actions
and provide reasons; When I raise my voice to my GF, I feel my action is not just and then I'm obliged to
explain >> moral in domain of reason)

If someone is on criminal trial, to defend himself he must provide reasons to show he did not committed
his crime or he may admit that he committed the crime but he provide reasons to his act (justify
himself). So in every actions we do, good or bad, we provide reason for it > support the claim that
human action is product of practical reasoning

Argument that support that actions are product of feeling: (moral views are matters of sentiment)
What leads us to act is feeling of pleasure (Attraction or repulsion); I see coffee, smells good and I drink
coffee due to feeling of pleasure (the action of drinking is a result of pleasure, I like it and reason did
nothing here). It is feeling of pleasure of attraction or repulsion that leads us to actions
What cause our actions is not reasoning but our feeling (motivation to act) whereas reasons do not
motivate us
I know from science that smoking is bad. All human beings who smoke die from cancer (general
syllogisms), and I do not want to die from cancer and I should stop smoking. But I do not stop, I will
continue >> reason here is not enough to motivate me to act. If I fear that I am dying if I don't stop
smoking, then I may stop. Must have strong feelings.
Abstract truth are not a motive to us to act.
This is an argument that support that actions result from feeling.
But both sides are solid and satisfactory >> reason and sentiment work together in all moral judgments
and conclusions.

If we do not have any feeling or passions or any sense of pleasure or not, attraction or repulsion, then
NO moral actions (no motivation to act anymore). What motivates human beings in acting are feelings
and passions.

Reasons can still also play role. Reasons play a secondary role. 1st role by our feelings

It is feeling that causes us to act but reason helps the moral agent to choose things that better satisfy my
feelings. (Example: good to have milk on diet…. Drinking milk is the action; if I drink a milk, not bcz of
practice syllogisms, but bcz I fear dying of osteoporosis >> fear of dying lead me to drink but reasons
tells me that other food also provide calcium; also calcium in milk is better absorbed than other food like
spinach... >> reason helps me choose milk instead of spinach but it is not what motivates me to
consume milk)
Reason in the service of passions; passion more important in human actions
Why for ancient philosophers, reason was the top priority??
>> Reason more fundamental than feeling (reason control and constrains feeling)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__